Talk-radio host should fact check Stephens’ statement that GOP would rally around Stephens but not Buck

KNUS talk show host Dan Caplis sat silently behind his microphone last week while his guest, GOP Senate candidate Amy Stephens, said the Republican Party would not get behind her opponent, Ken Buck, if he wins the Republican nomination to take on Democratic Sen. Mark Udall. But Republicans would rally around her, she said.

Stephens: "I also believe nationally, and I have heard this in my travels, that there is not going to be — You know, when somebody wins a primary, people rally, come around. The party goes, whatever. I do not believe that’s going to happen should Ken be the nominee. I do believe this would happen should I become the nominee, because I think there will be a lot more interest in this race and a lot more support." [BigMedia emphasis]

You wish Caplis had asked for the names of the folks who've been telling Stephens, during her national "travels," that they won't back Buck, even if he were the one left standing. Presumably it wasn't anyone associated with the rainmakers at the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and it's likely Stephens wouldn't have told Caplis about her sources, if he'd asked.

But, at least, Caplis could have fact-checked Stephens on her statement, delivered during a Jan. 15 interview, that "people would rally, come around" and support her if she gets the nomination.

So, to fill in the media gap left by Caplis, I decided to see if Stephens was correct. I didn't think so, because I thought I'd heard Ken Clark, co-host of KLZ 560-AM's flagship Tea-Party talk show, Grassroots Radio Colorado, say that he would not only never support Stephens but would never vote for her as well.

"I will never under any circumstances vote for Amy Stephens," Clark said via email when asked about Stephens. "She is the epitome of what the GrassRoots despises in some Republican Party candidates and elected officials. She is a big government, statist Republican and does not represent Conservative Values. Her arrogance is beyond measure, and I really don't see much difference between her and Udall. The Party had better come up with a candidate that is more palatable to the GrassRoots, or they will deliver yet another loss."

Before I had a chance to ask him about the veracity of Stephens' statement, Randy Corporon, who's hosting a new "Wake Up" show on KLZ (5-7 a.m.) announced Jan. 17 on air that he wouldn't vote for Stephens.

"Amy Stephens is running for Senate in Colorado on the Republican ticket, but she is the mother of Obamacare in Colorado," said Corporon. "I cannot support her.I have said publicly, and I will say again: If she is the Republican nominee, I will find a Libertarian. I won’t vote for the Democrat. But there are certain lesser-of-two-evils choices that I am no longer willing to make. Is the Republican Party paying attention to that?

Does the Republican Party understand that they cannot win without the Liberty Movement, without those of us who knock on doors and make phone calls, and write small checks regularly and consistently to try and support the candidates that we believe in? Do they understand that they can’t win without us? And if they promote—if they attack our people, the constitutionally principled conservatives that are running, if they promote the big government, establishment Republican-type candidates over our own, they’re not going to win, because they can’t win without us. Amy Stephens should just get out of the race." Listen to KLZ host Randy Corporon explain why he won't vote for Amy Stephens (1.17.14)

Certainly Stephens could be correct that Republicans will get behind her if she wins the nomination, while Buck would repel fellow Republicans away from him, if he's the nominee. But if you're tuned in to talk radio, and Caplis certainly is, you know there's two sides to that story that deserve to be aired.

News media, real media, whatever the term, means the basic idea is to check things out, ask people for comment, research the issue. As I said, it's a target-rich environment to criticize the real media for various failings. Talk shows are not in any way, shape or form real media, and to expect any of them to give a rip about facts or folllow-up questions is silly. They're selling soap.

I disagree with you, Gertie. While they do sell soap, cars, and other products, "real" news hours do this, as well. Both claim to research stories, interview people, and check facts.

I'm the kid of a veteran newspaperman, who also had to do all of that in his work. He mostly got it right, and sometimes paid a penalty for it. (See link – that's my papa in the picture, and those of you who care now know what my family name was)

There is a difference, and talk shows do blur the lines between entertainment and news in some stories (Maddow's "Best thing in the world", Hayes "Click 3"), but real news stations certainly run their quota of feel-good fluff pieces and kitten/puppy stories, as well.

No, that's my "little" 50 year old sister, Merredith! It was part of a digital storytelling project, and somehow it got kicked to Upworthy.

I remember the molotov cocktail incident vividly. It was scary, but seemed unreal. What Merredith didn't say in her story was that the threat could have come from either white racists or black militants – my dad upset them both equally with his pro-integration stance. I don't think that the police ever found out anything.

Of course all media advertises products. It's what pays the bills. My distinction is that it's a waste of time to offer criticism of talk show hosts for checking things out or asking follow-up questions. They're not in that business and not remotely concerned with either facts or follow-ups.

Jon Stewart wouldn't dream of offering his show as real news, or trying to pass it off as anything other than (very) popular entertainment.